The Relations between Reading Comprehension and Reading ...

The Relations between Reading Comprehension and Reading

Fluency: Their Reciprocal Roles as an Indicator and Predictor1

Kasım YILDIRIM2, Seyit ATEŞ3,

Fatih Çetin ÇETİNKAYA4 & Dudu KAYA TOSUN5

ABSTRACT

In the current research, we aimed to explore the relations between reading comprehension

and reading fluency and their connections with each other as an indicator and a predictor.

For this overall aim, a total of 100 students from the seventh-grade level were enrolled. This

research took place in fall semester, 2015, in Turkey’s Denizli province. The participants from

all grade levels were willing and available to take part in the present study. Informed

consent letters were obtained from all of the participants and their parents or guardians. The

participants were relatively homogenous and of middle socioeconomic (SES) status. They

ranged in age from 13 through 15 years. For the measures of fluency, components were taken

from students’ oral reading of the same texts including narrative and expository according to

grade levels. After then, the students’ reading comprehension levels were assessed. Every

comprehension test for the grade levels included a narrative text and an expository text, and

12 questions were prepared for every text, six of which were literal and another five of which

were inferential. The path analyses were used to identify the relations between reading

fluency and reading comprehension. According to the results of the research, some

recommendations were given.

Key Words: Reading comprehension, Reading fluency, Reading success

DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.22521/jesr.2019.92.2

e-ISSN 2146-5266

Received Date: 22.08.2019 Accepted Date: 27.09.2019

Atıf için / Please cite as:

Yıldırım, K., Ateş, S., Çetinkaya, F. Ç., & Kaya-Tosun, D. (2019). The relations between reading

comprehension and reading fluency: their reciprocal roles as an indicator and predictor. Eğitim

Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi - Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 9(2), 67-81.

https://dergipark.org.tr/ebader

1 This paper was presented at 20th European Conference on Literacy. 2 Ph.D. - Mugla Sitki Kocman University, [email protected] - ORCID: 0000-0003-1406-709X 3 Ph.D. - Gazi University, [email protected] - ORCID: 0000-0002-4498-0376 4 Ph.D. - Duzce University, [email protected] - ORCID: 0000-0002-9843-6747 5 Ph.D. - Ministry of National Education, [email protected] - ORCID: 0000-0002-1929-9407

YILDIRIM, ATEŞ, ÇETİNKAYA & KAYA-TOSUN

The Relations between Reading Comprehension and Reading Fluency: Their Reciprocal Roles as an Indicator and Predictor

68

INTRODUCTION

Learn to read is one of the important achievements in childhood period. Because,

reading is the requirement of learning and academic success (Paris, 2005). The overall aim of

learn to read is making meaning from texts (Veenendaal, Groen, & Verhoeven, 2016).

Without drawing meaning, reading just the words in the texts has not any purpose. The

thing, which motivates the reader reading more, is making meaning (Caldwell, 2008).

There are some underlying factors making reading process difficult or easy. Reading

comprehension is a complex task including a variety of cognitive skills. Beside these skills

affecting reading comprehension, reading fluency also is another important component

helping the readers to extract the meaning from the texts (Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004;

Caldwell, 2008). Because of this reason, the success in reading fluency is a crucial phase for

becoming proficient readers (Kuhn, & Schwanenflugel, 2008).

Reading fluency not only is word recognition accuracy and automaticity but also it

includes chunking the text into significant segments. Additionally, it requires giving

attention the significant connections in sentences and between sentences based on

morphologic knowledge and punctuation while it is read (Pretorius, & Spaull, 2016). This

definition stresses the component of reading fluency including accuracy, automaticity, and

prosody (Hudson, Pullen, Lane, & Torgesen, 2009; Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, & Meisinger,

2010; Nichols, Rupley, & Rasinski, 2009; Rasinski, 2014). In that regard, it is contended that

reading fluency is the ability to read a text accurately, quickly, and with expression. Fluency

is important because it provides a bridge between word recognition ad comprehension

(Grabe, 2004; Veenendaal, Groen, & Verhoeven, 2014).

Considering the studies related to exploring the relations between reading fluency and

reading comprehension, there have been a variety of studies in different grade levels at

elementary school. In the study (Pretorius, & Spaull, 2016), the relations between reading

comprehension and reading fluency was investigated at fifth-grade students. The study

conducted by Baker, Smolkowski, Katz, Fien, Seeley, Kame’enui, and Beck (2008)

investigated the effects of reading fluency on reading development, reading difficulties, and

reading comprehension from first grade through third grade. According to the results

obtained from the studies of Veenendaal, Groen, and Verhoeven (2015) and Duncan,

McGeown, Griffiths, Stothard, and Dobai (2016), there were positive relations between

reading fluency and comprehension in third and fourth grades. Similar to these results, the

study of Park, Chaparro, Preciado, and Cummings (2015) documented that reading fluency

had the positive and significant effects on reading comprehension levels of the third-grade

students. Additionally, Cañizo Suarez, and Cuetos’ (2015) study revealed that the lack of

reading fluency resulted in reading comprehension problems. All the studies, which are

given, have shown the positive relations between reading fluency and reading

comprehension.

The reading-driven scientific studies national and international scale have documented

that reading fluency is a strong and significant predictor of reading comprehension (Roehrig,

Petscher, Nettles, Hudson, & Torgesen, 2008; Pearce, & Gayle, 2009; Petscher, & Kim, 2011;

Grasparil, & Hernandez, 2015; Ulu, 2016). In contrast to this, some of the studies documented

that reading fluency is a result of reading comprehension sufficiency (e.g., Pikulski, & Chard,

2005). Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, and Jenkins (2001) claimed that having sufficient background

knowledge and making extracting meaning from a text help any reader to read fluently. The

Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi – Journal of Educational Sciences Research

69

other study focusing on the proficient reader and the readers with reading difficulties

showed that the readers having high reading comprehension levels had high-level reading

fluency. It may be contended that the relations between reading fluency and reading

comprehension is reciprocal as the indicator and the predictor. However, given the studies

relevant to reading fluency and reading comprehension in Turkey, there is a need for doing

research to explore their reciprocal relations. That is why, this research aimed to explore the

reciprocal relations between reading fluency and reading comprehension.

The Purpose of the Study

In this research, the researchers investigated the reciprocal relationship as an indicator

and a predictor between components of reading fluency and reading comprehension. The

main research questions addressed in this investigation were:

1. What sort of bidirectional associations do occur between reading fluency and

reading comprehension components in expository text reading?

2. What sort of bidirectional associations do occur between reading fluency and

reading comprehension components in narrative text reading?

METHOD

Participants

The present study aimed to explore the relations among the components of reading

fluency and reading comprehension among Turkish students. A total of 100 students from

seventh grade level were enrolled in the study. This research took place in fall semester,

2015, in Turkey’s Denizli province. The participants were willing and available to take part

in the present study. Informed consent letters were obtained from all of the participants and

their parents or guardians. The participants were relatively homogenous and of middle

socioeconomic (SES) status. They ranged in age from 13 through 14 years. The participants

were not identified as learning disabled and their reading development was felt to be within

grade level expectations according to their classroom teachers and the school counselor. All

of the participants in the research were considered typically developing readers by their

teachers. The predominant language (native language) of the students from all grade levels

was Turkish and the students were not fluent speakers of English.

Measures and Procedures

Students were asked to read a grade-appropriate narrative text and expository text and

answer a set of comprehension questions related to the passages. The texts for reading

comprehension and the components of reading fluency from seventh grade level were

chosen from a collection of graded Turkish expository and narrative texts (Akyol, Yildirim,

Ates, Cetinkaya, & Rasinski, 2014). We employed measures of reading comprehension,

developed by the authors of the present study in Turkish. Twelve comprehension questions

were prepared for every text, of which half were literal and another half were

deep/inferential. Every test consisted of 12 questions included multiple-choice and open-

ended questions. The actual student reading had a fixed time condition, as previous research

has shown that additional/unlimited time did not enhance the performance of nondisabled

students and fixed time limits allowed ample time for the great majority of students to

complete the test (e.g., Alster, 1997; Bridgeman, Trapani, & Curley, 2004).



70

Prior to the study, the texts and accompanying questions were reviewed by the experts

in reading education to the extent to which the texts adequately corresponded to reading

domain objectives of the grade levels Turkish language arts curriculum and the questions

adequately measured comprehension of the texts. The experts also verified that each

comprehension question was appropriate to test development standards and the students’

reading levels. Correct responses to each question were scored as 1 point, and incorrect

answers were scored as 0 points. Total scores ranged from 0 to 12. In the present study, we

used Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR20) as a measure of internal consistency reliability

for measures with dichotomous choices. Although Cronbach’s Alpha is usually used for

scores that fall along a continuum, it will produce the same results as KR20 with

dichotomous data (0 or 1) (Kuder, & Richardson, 1937; Cortina, 1993; Tabachnick, & Fidell,

2007). The comprehension tests’ internal consistency reliabilities ranged from .72 to .77 KR20

coefficients for the total of 12 questions. These coefficient values indicated that the scores

obtained from the comprehension tests had acceptable internal consistency and the scores of

the students from the tests had a homogeneous construct.

Students were tested individually and asked to read orally the passage corresponding

to their grade level placement. The students were asked to read the text in their best or most

expressive voice and were told that they would be asked questions about what they had read

following their reading. During the oral reading, the researcher administering the test

marked any uncorrected word recognition errors made by the student as well as marking the

text position of the student at the end of one minute of reading in order to determine reading

rate, a measure of word recognition automaticity. Prosody or expressive reading, a second

element of fluency, was measured by independent evaluators listening to the student

reading of the grade-level text and then rating the prosodic quality of the oral reading using

a multi-dimensional fluency scale or rubric that describes levels of competency on various

elements of prosody: expression and volume, phrasing, smoothness, and pace (Rasinski,

2004a). The rubric was developed by Rasinski (2004b) and adapted by Yildiz, Yildirim, Ates,

and Cetinkaya (2009) for Turkish students. Previous research with readers of English has

demonstrated the rubric to be a reliable and valid measure of prosody (Rasinski, Homan, &

Biggs, 2009; Paige, Rasinski, & Magpuri-Lavell, 2012). The Turkish adaptation of the scale

has the following four main dimensions: (a) expression and volume, (b) phrasing, (c)

smoothness, and (d) pace. Students’ scores can range between a minimum of 4 and a

maximum of 16.

FINDINGS

The data obtained from the students’ reading narrative texts included measures of

word recognition automaticity (words read correctly per minute), prosody (rating of

expressiveness using the multi-dimensional fluency scale–scores ranged from 4-16), answers

to comprehension questions (scores ranged from 0-12). Means and standard deviations by

for the three variables according to narrative text reading were presented in Table 1.


71

Table 1. Means and standard deviations for reading fluency and reading comprehension components

in narrative text reading

Grade N M SD

7

Literal Comprehension 100 2.52 1.07

Deep Comprehension 100 2.44 1.16

Prosody 100 12.75 2.63

Automaticity 100 111.17 26.19

In order to determine the relationship between measures of fluency and

comprehension, correlations were calculated among the key variables by grade level and

presented in Table 2. All correlations were found to be statistically significant and

substantial.

Table 2. Correlations between measures of fluency and comprehension components in narrative text

reading

Grade Automaticity-Literal Automaticity-Deep Prosody-Literal Prosody-Deep

7 .26** .54** .20* .53**

Note. *p<.05. **p<.01

Given the robust correlations between fluency and reading comprehension

components, we ran structural model with AMOS and Mplus at seventh grade level to

determine the relationship of the fluency variables and comprehension. Those results were

presented in path diagram below.

Figure 1. The relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension in expository text

reading Note. The single-headed arrows show standardized regression coefficients and direct effects in the

path model. All the coefficients are significant in the model. Since there were not enough constrains

and residuals in the model, the model did not produce sufficient degree of freedom value. Due to this

reason, the fit indices, which would be wrong, were not reported.

*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.

The results of the model indicated that reading fluency explained 63% of variance in

reading comprehension. Additionally, it made significant contribution to the prediction of



72

reading comprehension (β=.79, p=.010). In addition, the indicators of reading fluency and

reading comprehension in the model were statistically significant. The measurement (CFA)

model showing the relations as indicators between reading fluency and reading

comprehension components were presented in the path diagram below.

Figure 2. The CFA model showing the roles of the variables as indicators in narrative text reading

Not. ***p<.001

For the full sample, the model yielded good fit indices. When reviewed overall model

fit summary indices in the model, the χ2 test yielded a value of 2.455, which was evaluated

with 2 degrees of freedom, had a corresponding p-value of .293. The χ2/df was 1.227.

Additionally, the RMSA was .048. The TLI was .98 and CFI was 99. Moreover, SRMR was

.0324. We would say that all of the indices suggested that the model appeared by the

structural equation model analysis was a good fit to the data. Means and standard deviations

by for the three variables according to expository text reading were presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Means and standard deviations for reading fluency and reading comprehension components

in expository text reading

Grade N M SD

7

Literal Comprehension 100 2.41 1.22

Deep Comprehension 100 1.22 1.06

Prosody 100 11.89 2.81

Automaticity 100 92.47 25.68

In order to determine the relationship between measures of fluency and

comprehension, correlations were calculated among the key variables by grade level and

presented in Table 4. All correlations were found to be statistically significant and

substantial.


73

Table 4. Correlations between measures of fluency and comprehension components in expository text

reading

Grade Automaticity-Literal Automaticity-Deep Prosody-Literal Prosody-Deep

7 .33** .38** .37* .38**

Note. **p<.01

Given the robust correlations between fluency and reading comprehension

components, we ran the structural model with AMOS and Mplus at seventh grade level to

determine the relationship of the fluency variables and comprehension. Those results were

presented in path diagram below.

Figure 1. The relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension in expository text

reading Note. The single-headed arrows show standardized regression coefficients and direct effects in the

path model. All the coefficients are significant in the model. Since there were not enough constrains

and residuals in the model, the model did not produce sufficient degree of freedom value. Due to this

reason, the fit indices, which would be wrong, were not reported.

***p<.001.

The results of the model indicated that reading fluency explained 54% of variance in

reading comprehension. Additionally, it made significant contribution to the prediction of

reading comprehension (β=.73, p=.000). In addition, the indicators of reading fluency and

reading comprehension in the model were statistically significant. The measurement (CFA)

model showing the relations as indicators between reading fluency and reading

comprehension components were presented in the path diagram below.

The measurement (CFA) model showing the relations as indicators between reading

fluency and reading comprehension components were presented in the path diagram below.



74

Reading Fluency

Automaticity

Prosody

Literal

Deep

.75

.78

.50

.53

Figure 2. The CFA model showing the roles of the variables as indicators in expository text reading

Not. ***p<.001

When reviewed overall model fit summary indices in the model, the χ2 test yielded a

value of 5.242, which was evaluated with 2 degrees of freedom, had a corresponding p-value

of .073. The χ2/df was 2.621. Additionally, the RMSA was .128. The TLI was .88 and CFI was

96. Moreover, SRMR was .0501. We would say that all of the indices suggested that the

model appeared by the structural equation model analysis was a good fit to the data.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Reading fluency is acknowledged as one of the underlying factors for reading

comprehension. It is contended that there are reciprocal relations between reading

comprehension and reading fluency. In other words, while reading comprehension skill may

help reader to read a text accurately, quickly, and with expression, reading a text accurately,

quickly, and with expression may help reader to derive meaning (Kuhn, & Schwanenflugel,

2015). The current research aimed to explore the reciprocal relations between reading fluency

and reading comprehension. The present research findings showed that there were

statistically significant reciprocal relations between reading comprehension and reading

fluency. These findings were consistent with the previous research (Paige, Rasinski, &

Magpuri-Lavell, 2012; Dickens, & Meisenger, 2016; Duncan et al., 2016; Pretorius, & Spaull,

2016).

The other result of the research showed that while reading fluency accounted for 63%

of the variance in reading comprehension in narrative text reading, it predicted 54% of the

variance in reading comprehension in expository text reading. This finding documented that

reading fluency is good predictor of reading comprehension. Any reader having deficiency

in reading fluency spends most of her/his attention to reading words one by one. Since the

reader makes more pauses and repetition when she/he reads, they result in decreasing of


75

word recognition automaticity and lead to reading comprehension problems

(Schwanenflugel, & Kuhn, 2008). Previous research also has underscored that reading

fluency is a strong predictor of reading comprehension (Roehrig et al., 2008; Pearce, & Gayle,

2009; Petscher, & Kim, 2011; Grasparil, & Hernandez, 2015; Ulu, 2016).

Additionally, another result of the study revealed that prosody, automaticity, literal

and inferential comprehension skills were good and significant indicators of reading fluency

in both narrative and expository text reading. In addition, they were strong indicators of

reading comprehension as well. In that regard, it would be argued that good readers in

reading comprehension may have more advantage to read a text fluently. The research,

which argue that reading comprehension is an indicator of reading fluency, has indicated

that reading comprehension makes readers read a text fluently (Fuchs et al., 2001; Jenkins,

Fuchs, Van Den Broek, Espin, & Deno, 2003; Pikulski, & Chard, 2005; Canizo et al., 2015). The

research exploring reciprocal relations between reading fluency and reading comprehension

supports this argument (Yildirim, & Rasinski, 2014; Yildiz, Yildirim, Ates, Fitzgerald,

Rasinski, & Zimmerman, 2014). The study of Klauda and Guthrie (2008) showed the

reciprocal relations between reading comprehension and reading fluency. In the research,

reading fluency appeared as a strong predictor of reading comprehension and as well as

reading comprehension was a good indicator of reading fluency. All previous research

findings were consistent with the present research findings.

REFERENCES

Akyol, H., Yildirim, K., Ates., Cetinkaya, C., & Rasinski, T. (2014). Reading assessment.

Ankara: Pegem Publishing.

Alster, E. H. (1997). The effects of extended time on algebra test scores for college students

with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 222-227.

Baker, S. K., Smolkowski, K., Katz, R., Fien, H., Seeley, J. R., Kame’enui, E., & Beck, C. T.

(2008). Reading fluency as a predictor of reading proficiency in low-performing, high-

poverty schools. School Psychology Review, 37(1), 18-37.

Bridgeman, B., Trapani, C., & Curley, E. (2004). Impact of fewer questions per section on STI

scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 291-310.

Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. E. (2004). Children’s reading

comprehension ability: Working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 96, 31-42.

Caldwell, J. S. (2008). Reading assessment: A Primer for teachers and coaches. USA: The Guilford

Press.

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.

Dickens, R. H., & Meisinger, E. B. (2016). Examining the effects of skill level and reading

modality on reading comprehension. Reading Psychology, 37(2), 318-337. DOI:

10.1080/02702711.2015.1055869

Duncan, L. G., McGeown, S. P., Grifths, Y. M., Stothard, S. E., & Dobai, A. (2016). Adolescent

reading skill and engagement with digital and traditional literacies as predictors of

reading comprehension. British Journal of Psychology, 107(2) 209-238.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an

indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis.

Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239-256.



76

Grabe, W. (2004). Research on teaching reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 44-

69.

Grasparil, T. H., & Hernandez, D. A. (2015). Predictors of Latino English learners’ reading

comprehension proficiency. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 5(1) 35-57.

Guerin, A., & Murphy, B. (2015). Repeated reading as a method to ımprove reading fluency

for struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(7), 551-560.

Hudson, R. F., Pullen, P. C., Lane, H. B., & Torgesen, J. K. (2009). The complex nature of

reading fluency: a multidimensional view. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(1), 4-32.

Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., Van Den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Accuracy and

fluency in list and context reading of skilled and RD groups: Absolute and relative

performance levels. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 237-245.

Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Relationships of three components of reading fluency to

reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 310-321

Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability.

Psychometrika, 2, 151-160.

Kuhn, M. R., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (Eds.) (2008). Fluency in the classroom. New

York/London: The Guilford Press.

Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Align theory and assessment of

reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research

Quarterly, 45, 230-251.

Nichols, W. D., Rupley, W. H., & Rasinski, T. (2009). Fluency in learning to read for meaning:

Going beyond repeated readings. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(1), 1-13.

Paige, D. D., Rasinski, T. V., & Magpuri-Lavell, T. (2012). Is fluent, expressive reading

important for high school readers? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(1), 67-76.

Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research

Quarterly, 40(2), 184–202.

Pearce, L. R., & Gayle, R. (2009). Oral reading fluency as a predictor of reading

comprehension with American Indian and white elementary students. School

Psychology Review, 38(3), 419-427.

Petscher, Y., & Kim, Y. S. (2011). The utility and accuracy of oral reading fluency score types

in predicting reading comprehension. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 107-129.

Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading

comprehension. Reading Teacher, 58, 510-519.

Press.Cañizo, M. A., Suárez, P., & Cuetos, C. F. (2015). The role of reading fluency in

children’s text comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-8.

Pretorius, E. J., & Spaull, N. (2016). Exploring relationships between oral reading fluency and

reading comprehension amongst English second language readers in South Africa.

Read Writ, 29, 1449-1471.

Rasinski, T. V. (2004a). Creating fluent readers. Educational Leadership, 61, 46-51.

Rasinski, T. V. (2004b). Assessing reading fluency. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for

Education and Learning.

Rasinski, T., Homan, S., & Biggs, M. (2009). Teaching reading fluency to struggling readers:

Method, materials, and evidence. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(2-3), 192-204.

Rasinski, T. V. (2014). Fluency matters. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education,

7(1), 3-12.


77

Roehrig, A. D., Petscher, Y., Nettles, S. M., Hudson, R. F., & Torgesen, J. K. (2008). Accuracy

of the DIBELS oral reading fluency measure for predicting third grade reading

comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 343-366.

Schwanenflugel, P., J., & Kuhn, M. (2015). Reading fluency. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook

of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context. New York: Routledge.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. D. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

Ulu, M. (2016). A structural Equation model to explain the effect of fluent reading, literal

comprehension and inferential comprehension levels of elementary school 4th grade

students on success in problem solving. Education and Science, 41(186), 93-117.

Veenendaal, N. J., Groen, M. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2014). The role of speech prosody and text

reading prosody in children’s reading comprehension. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 84, 521-536.

Veenendaal, N. J., Groen, M. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2015). What oral text reading fluency can

reveal about reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(3), 213-225.

Veenendaal, N. J., Groen, M. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2016). The contribution of segmental and

suprasegmental phonology to reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly,

51(1), 55-66.

Yildirim, K., & Rasinski, T. (2014). Reading fluency beyond English: Investigations into

reading fluency in Turkish elementary students. International Electronic Journal of

Elementary Education, 7, 97-06.

Yildiz, M., Yildirim, K., Ates, S., & Cetinkaya, C. (2009). An evaluation of the oral reading

fluency of 4th graders with respect to prosodic characteristic. International Journal of

Human Science, 6, 353-360.

Yildiz, M., Yildirim, K., Ates, S., Fitzgerald, S., Rasinski, T., & Zimmerman, B. (2014).

Components skills underlying reading fluency and their relations with reading

comprehension in fifth-grade Turkish students. International Journal of School &

Educational Psychology, 2, 35-44.



78

TÜRKÇE UZUN ÖZET

Okuduğunu Anlama ve Akıcı Okuma Arasındaki İlişkiler:

Gösterge ve Yordayıcı Değişken Olarak Karşılıklı İlişkileri6

Kasım YILDIRIM7, Seyit ATEŞ8,

Fatih Çetin ÇETİNKAYA9 & Dudu KAYA TOSUN10

GİRİŞ

Okumayı öğrenmek, çocukluk döneminin en büyük başarılarından biridir. Çünkü

okuma, öğrenme ve akademik başarı için temel bir beceridir (Paris, 2005). Alfabetik

kuralların kazanılmasıyla başlayan okumayı öğrenme sürecinin nihai amacı, yazılı

metinlerden anlam çıkarmayı öğrenmektir (Veenendaal, Groen, & Verhoeven, 2016). Okuma,

bu süreci kolaylaştıran ya da zorlaştıran çeşitli faktörlerle etkileşim halindedir. Okuduğunu

anlama, pek çok farklı bilişsel beceri ve süreçleri içeren karmaşık bir görevdir. Okuyucunun

anlamı yapılandırmasında etkili olan bu bilişsel becerilerle birlikte özellikle akıcı okumanın

okuduğunu anlamada önemli bir gösterge olduğu belirtilmektedir (Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant,

2004; Caldwell, 2008). Bu nedenle öğrencilerin akıcı okuma aşamasında başarılı olmaları

yetkin bir okuyucu olmaları yönünde önemli bir eşiktir (Kuhn, & Schwanenflugel, 2008).

Akıcı okuma (hızlı, doğru ve doğal tonlamayla okuma becerisi) okuduğunu anlamanın bir

göstergesi olarak ifade edilmektedir (Grabe, 2004; Veenendaal vd., 2014).

Akıcı okuma ve okuduğunu anlama arasındaki ilişkileri araştırmaya yönelik çalışmalar

incelendiğinde ilkokulda farklı sınıf seviyelerinde çeşitli çalışmalara rastlanmaktadır.

Pretorius ve Spaull (2016) tarafından yapılan bir çalışmada beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinde

okuduğunu anlama ve akıcı okuma arasındaki ilişkiler incelenmiştir. Baker, Smolkowski,

Katz, Fien, Seeley, Kame’enui ve Beck (2008) tarafından yapılan çalışmada, akıcı okuma

gelişimi, okuma zorlukları ve birinci sınıftan üçüncü sınıfa kadar okuduğunu anlama

üzerindeki etkileri incelenmiştir. Veenendaal, Groen ve Verhoeven (2015) ve Duncan,

McGeown, Griffiths, Stothard ve Dobai (2016) çalışmalarından elde edilen sonuçlara göre,

üçüncü ve dördüncü sınıflarda akıcı okuma ve anlama arasındaki olumlu bir ilişki olduğu

belirtilmektedir. Bu sonuçlara benzer şekilde, Park, Chaparro, Preciado ve Cummings (2015)

tarafından yapılan çalışmada akıcı okumanın üçüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin okuduğunu anlama

düzeyleri üzerinde olumlu ve anlamlı bir etkisi olduğu sonucu elde edilmiştir. Bunun

yanında Cañizo Suarez ve Cuetos’un (2015) çalışması, akıcı okuma eksikliğinin okuduğunu

anlama problemlerine yol açtığını ortaya koymaktadır. Sözü edilen tüm çalışmalar, akıcı

okuma ile okuduğunu anlama arasındaki pozitif ilişkileri göstermesi bakımından önemli

görülmektedir.

Öte yandan akıcı okumanın, okuduğunu anlama üzerinde yordayıcı etkisi olduğunu

gösteren hem uluslararası hem de ulusal ölçekte çalışmalar (Roehrig, Petscher, Nettles,

6 Bu makale 20th European Conference on Literacy’de sunulan bildirinin geliştirilmiş halidir. 7 Dr. - Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi, [email protected] - ORCID: 0000-0003-1406-709X 8 Dr. - Gazi Üniversitesi, [email protected] - ORCID: 0000-0002-4498-0376 9 Dr. - Düzce Üniversitesi, [email protected] - ORCID: 0000-0002-9843-6747 10 Dr. - MEB, [email protected] - ORCID: 0000-0002-1929-9407


79

Hudson, & Torgesen, 2008; Pearce, & Gayle, 2009; Petscher, & Kim, 2011; Grasparil, &

Hernandez, 2015; Ulu, 2016) bulunmaktadır. Akıcı okumanın yordayıcı rolünün aksine

anlama yeterliliğinin bir sonucu olduğunu gösteren çalışmalar (Pikulski, & Chard, 2005) da

bulunmaktadır. Jenkins, Fuchs, Broek, Espin ve Deno (2003) iyi okuyucular ve okuma

güçlüğü çeken okuyucularla gerçekleştirdikleri çalışmanın sonunda okuduğunu anlamada

daha iyi olan öğrencilerin akıcı okumada da daha iyi oldukları ifade edilmektedir. Bu durum

akıcı okuma ve okuduğunu anlama ilişkisinin karşılıklı olarak hem bir yordayıcı hem de bir

gösterge olarak gerçekleştiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ancak özellikle ulusal ölçekte bu

karşılıklı ilişkinin araştırıldığı çalışmaların yeterli sayıda olmaması nedeniyle daha fazla

araştırmaya ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Bu bağlamda bu araştırmada, akıcı okuma ve

okuduğunu anlama hem bir gösterge hem de bir yordayıcı olarak ele alınmakta ve nasıl

ilişkiler gösterdiği incelenmektedir. Bu bağlamda bu araştırmanın amacı, okuduğunu

anlama ile akıcı okuma arasındaki ilişkileri hem gösterge hem yordayıcı rol olarak karşılıklı

olarak incelemektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda şu sorulara yanıt aranmaktadır:

1. Bilgi verici metinlerde okuduğunu anlama ve akıcı okuma arasındaki karşılıklı

ilişkiler nasıl ortaya çıkmaktadır?

2. Hikâye edici metinlerde okuduğunu anlama ve akıcı okuma arasındaki karşılıklı

ilişkiler nasıl ortaya çıkmaktadır?

YÖNTEM

Araştırma, 2015 yılının sonbahar döneminde, Türkiye'nin Denizli ilinde 7. sınıflarda

öğrenim gören toplam 100 öğrenci ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Tüm sınıflardan çalışmaya

katılmak için istekli olan öğrenciler seçilmiştir. Çalışma için tüm katılımcılardan ve

ebeveynlerinden/velilerinden bilgilendirilmiş onay mektupları alınmıştır. Araştırma, orta

sosyoekonomik düzeydeki okullardaki öğrencilerle yürütülmüştür. Katılımcılar 13-15 yaş

aralığında olup herhangi bir öğrenme güçlüğü olmayan öğrencilerdir. Ayrıca sınıf

öğretmenleri tarafından okuma gelişimlerinin sınıf seviyesine uygun olduğu belirtilmiştir.

Akıcı okumaya ilişkin araştırma verileri araştırmacılar tarafından önceden hazırlanan

ve tamamı aynı olan hikâye edici ve bilgi verici metinlerin öğrenciler tarafından

okunmasıyla elde edilmiştir. Sonrasında öğrencilerin okuduklarını anlamaları

değerlendirilmiştir. Araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen anlama testi her metin için 6’sı

basit, diğer 6 tanesi ise çıkarımsal anlamaya yönelik hazırlanan toplam 12 sorudan

oluşmaktadır. Çalışmadan önce, metinler ve metinlerle ilgili sorular, Türkçe öğretim

programları ve kazanımlarına uygunluğu ile soruların metinleri anlamaya yönelik yeterliliği

bakımından okuma eğitimi uzmanları tarafından incelenmiştir. Uzmanlar ayrıca her anlama

sorusunun test geliştirme standartlarına ve öğrencilerin okuma seviyelerine uygun

olduğunu doğrulamıştır. Her soruya verilen doğru cevaplar 1 puan, hatalı cevaplar ise 0

puan olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Toplam puanlar 0 ile 12 arasında değişmektedir.

Okuduğunu anlama testlerinin güvenirliklerini belirlemede Kuder-Richardson Formula 20

(KR20) iç tutarlılık güvenilirlik ölçüsü olarak kullanılmıştır. Anlama testinin iç tutarlılık

güvenilirliği toplam 12 soru için KR20 katsayıları 0.72 ile 0.77 arasında değişmektedir. Bu

katsayı değerleri, anlama testlerinden elde edilen puanların kabul edilebilir iç tutarlılığa

sahip olduğunu ve öğrencilerin testlerden aldıkları puanlarının homojen bir yapıya sahip

olduğunu göstermektedir.

Veri toplama aşamasında öğrencilerden metni en iyi veya en anlamlı sesleriyle

okumaları istenmiş ve okuduktan sonra okudukları hakkında sorular sorulacağı



80

söylenmiştir. Sözlü okuma sırasında, testi uygulayan araştırmacı, öğrencinin yaptığı

düzeltilmemiş kelime tanıma hatalarını işaretlemiş, aynı zamanda okuma hızını, kelime

tanıma ölçüsünü belirlemek için öğrencinin bir dakikalık okuma sonunda okuduğu bölümü

işaretlemiştir. İkinci bir akıcı okuma unsuru olan prozodi, öğrencinin okuduğu metnin

kayıtlarını dinleyen bağımsız değerlendiriciler tarafından ölçülmüş ve daha sonra Rasinski

(2004b) tarafından geliştirilen ve Türkçeye Yıldız, Yıldırım, Ateş ve Çetinkaya (2009)

tarafından uyarlanan çok boyutlu akıcılık ölçeği ile değerlendirilmiştir. Ölçekte ifade ve ses

düzeyi, anlam üniteleri ve tonlama, pürüzsüzlük ve hız olmak üzere dört alt boyut

bulunmaktadır. Ölçekten alınabilecek en düşük puan 4 ve en yüksek puan 16’dır.

BULGULAR

Akıcı okuma ve okuduğunu anlama ölçütleri arasındaki ilişkiyi belirlemek için anahtar

değişkenler arasındaki tüm korelasyonların istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olduğu bulunmuştur.

Değişkenler arasındaki path modelin sonuçları, hikâye edici metinlerde akıcı okumanın

okuduğunu anlamadaki varyansın % 63'ünü açıkladığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca akıcı

okuma, okuduğunu anlamada gösterge olarak önemli katkılarda bulunmuştur (β=.79,

p=.010). Modeldeki akıcı okuma ve okuduğunu anlama değerleri istatistiksel olarak anlamlı

bulunmuştur. Tüm veriler için, modelin uyum iyilik değerlerinin uygun olduğu

görülmektedir. Be nedenle tüm değerlerin, yapısal eşitlik modeli analizi ile ortaya çıkan

modelin verilere uygun olduğu söylenebilir. Ayrıca otomatiklik, prozodi, basit ve çıkarımsal

anlama arasındaki tüm korelasyonların da istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olduğu görülmektedir.

Bilgi verici metinler için test edilen modelin sonuçları, akıcı okumanın okuduğunu

anlamadaki varyansın % 54'ünü açıkladığını göstermektedir. Ek olarak, okuduğunu

anlamada gösterge olarak önemli katkılarda bulunmuştur (β=.73, p=.000). Ayrıca, modeldeki

akıcı okuma ve okuduğunu anlama değerlerinin de istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olduğu

görülmektedir.

Akıcı okuma, okuduğunu anlama için temel faktörlerden biri olarak kabul

edilmektedir. Okuduğunu anlama ve akıcı okuma arasında karşılıklı ilişkiler olduğu ileri

sürülmektedir. Başka bir deyişle, okuduğunu anlama becerisi okuyucunun bir metni doğru,

hızlı ve ifadeyle okumasına ve okuyucunun anlam çıkarmasına yardımcı olmaktadır (Kuhn,

& Schwanenflugel, 2015). Bu nedenle bu araştırmada akıcı okuma ve okuduğunu anlama

arasındaki karşılıklı ilişkilerin araştırılması amaçlanmaktadır. Bu araştırmadan elde edilen

bulgular okuduğunu anlama ile akıcı okuma arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ilişkiler

olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu bulgular literatürdeki önceki çalışmalarla tutarlılık

göstermektedir (Paige, Rasinski, & Magpuri-Lavell, 2012; Dickens, & Meisenger, 2016;

Duncan vd., 2016; Pretorius & Spaull, 2016). Araştırmanın bir diğer sonucu olarak, akıcı

okumanın hikâye edici metinde okuduğunu anlamadaki varyansın% 63'ünü oluşturduğunu,

bilgi verici metinde okuduğunu anlamadaki varyansın% 54'ünü açıkladığını göstermektedir.

Bu bulgu, akıcı okumanın okuduğunu anlamanın iyi bir yordayıcısı olduğunu ortaya

koymakta ve ilgili literatür ile tutarlılık sağlamaktadır (Roehrig vd., 2008; Pearce, & Gayle,

2009; Petscher, & Kim, 2011; Grasparil, & Hernandez, 2015; Ulu, 2016).

Çalışmanın bir başka sonucu da hem hikâye edici hem de bilgi verici metinlerde

prozodi, otomatiklik, basit ve çıkarımsal anlama becerilerinin akıcı okumanın önemli

göstergeleri olduğunu ortaya koymuş olmasıdır. Ayrıca, bu değişkenler aynı zamanda

okuduğunu anlamanın da güçlü göstergeleridir. Bu bağlamda, okuduğunu anlamadaki iyi

okuyucuların bir metni akıcı bir şekilde okuma konusunda daha avantajlı olabileceği


81

söylenebilir. Araştırmada akıcı okuma, okuduğunu anlama kavramının güçlü bir yordayıcısı

olarak ortaya çıkmış ve okuduğunu anlama, akıcı okumanın iyi bir göstergesi olmuştur.

Önceki tüm araştırma bulguları bu araştırmada elde edilen bulgularla tutarlılık

göstermektedir.

Anahtar Sözcükler: Okuduğunu anlama, Akıcı okuma, Okuma başarısı

The Relations between Reading Comprehension and Reading ...

Documents

Transcript of The Relations between Reading Comprehension and Reading ...